WGC Uvalde: US Team... What Happened????

To everyone with an interest:

Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?

Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.

Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.

We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?

Al Batross

On Monday, September 17, 2012 1:11:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross

the other pilots were faster. there is very little home field advantage in soaring in my observation. fast pilots are fast, no matter the location, weather, etc. it seems to me that we sent the fastest pilots in the US to the contest and they weren't as fast as the fastest pilots from other countries.

Given all the circumstances I think it is fair to say that our team were underdogs going into this competition. But I still think that we can take pride in how they represented our country. Dick Butler, in particular, completed Concordia, won two Contest Days and placed 7th in the Open Class. That is quite an achievement!

There have been many GREAT glider pilots that never won a world title. That does not diminish their skills or their achievements and certainly I don't respect or admire them any less for not having won at the World level. The level of competition and the difficulty of the competition itself serves as a reminder of just how special our own World Champions have been. It makes me appreciate the accomplishments of the late Paul Macready Jr., the late A.J. Smith, George Moffat (twice) and Doug Jacobs all the more.

I was happy for Dick Butler's success and think that we should celebrate the event by congratulating all of our USA Team Members for their efforts in representing the rest of us.

First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. In this case, FAI. The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. Far from it. FAI and US rules differ significantly. The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA.

The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. Which is fine. But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. Not even close to being close. Even with a super-glider in Open.

It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all.. The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. It is not a team.

We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. We need to develop a true team and leverage it. We need the pilots flying together and committed. We need to play the same game (FAI). That is just not going to happen with the current group.

Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams.

The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class. Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately.

I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. I hope others do the same. Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day.

PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. Its about flying together all the time...even though they might not fly FAI. What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? I would say Canada has serious podium potential. I would say the US will not improve.

I would love to see the US do better. But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS.

F2


On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
To everyone with an interest:



Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?



Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.



Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.



We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?



Al Batross

On Sep 18, 12:26*pm, "Sean F (F2)" wrote:
First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. *In this case, FAI. *The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. *With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. *Far from it. *FAI and US rules differ significantly. *The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA.

The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. *They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. *Which is fine. *But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. *Not even close to being close. *Even with a super-glider in Open.

It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. *I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. *With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all. *The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. *Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. *It is not a team.

We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. *We need to develop a true team and leverage it. *We need the pilots flying together and committed. *We need to play the same game (FAI). *That is just not going to happen with the current group.

Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. *Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams.

The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. *They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class.. *Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately.

I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. *I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. *I hope others do the same. *Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day.

PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. *Its about flying together all the time...even though they might not fly FAI. *What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? *I would say Canada has serious podium potential. *I would say the US will not improve.

I would love to see the US do better. *But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS.

F2







On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
To everyone with an interest:

Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened?

Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place.

Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas.

We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care?

Al Batross

The issue of using IGC rules comes up quite often, so perhaps one
(unofficial) rules committee voice should explain.

The IGC rules require far more assigned tasks than we typically use in
the US. The distance/speed points formula leads to much more gaggling
and leeching. For both reasons, the landout rate is much higher, as is
the chance of flying into rain, thunder, etc. The midair risk is also
much higher. (We had one effectively assigned task with big gaggles at
Mifflin this year, and I don't think anyone was anxious to repeat the
process)

These are the primary reasons we don't use IGC rules in the US -- or
at least the primary reason I don't advocate doing so. Yes, doing so
would better train the team. (From my one experience at worlds,
dealing with the very tactical start, leeching, gaggle strategies and
communication with team captains required under IGC rules are a far
bigger issue for US pilots than team flying. Maybe I just had a great
team mate.)

Alas, most of our nationals are on the edge of viability as it is.
Rules have to be run for the bottom 99%, not just to train the team.
If the only people who show up are team members, contests die.

Really, would you show up to a nationals if the game required hours of
start gate roulette, flying around every day in one big gaggle,
landing out (especially new pilots) several times in a contest,
requiring that you bring a crew (most of us don't these days) or buy a
glider with a motor? Would you come if we eschewed turn area and MAT
tasks, so you routinely were flying into doomed turnpoints in the rain
even though weather is great somewhere else? If the landout damage and
midairs were even more frequent?

The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first
two goals. Training the team comes later.

Still, the idea is worth exploring. We'll have poll questions up soon,
and a big one concerns radio usage. The main argument against radio
usage so far has been that it too would discourage participation, but
maybe that's wrong. With poll support, we can open up radio usage to
regionals this year and nationals in the future.

The US team camp contest idea has been around a long time, was a great
success last year and is worth pursuing. Such a contest can (by
waiver) use as much of the IGC rules as it likes. If lots of people
go, then we can demonstrate that our participation fears are
misplaced, and IGC rules can be used more broadly.

There's been lots of talk of staging a "continental" championships,
under IGC rules. It just takes a contest manager and site willing to
do it and a deep pocket willing to bankroll it. Go for it! There
really is no "they" who "oughtta" do these things. There is "us."

The RC is however pretty allergic to theoretical "build it and they
will come" arguments (see, PW5). One good thing about US rules (unlike
IGC!) is that we rely on experimentation at regionals to see if bright
ideas work in practice before making big changes at nationals. OTOH,
there is great flexibility for regionals and super regionals to try
anything vaguely sensible. So, if you want to see IGC rules, stage a
regional by IGC rules and demonstrate it can work and will attract
lots of pilots.

Disclaimer: personal opinion, not speaking for RC here.

John Cochrane

PS, The Canadians use a modified version of US rules and winscore.
(The main difference is the finish height, which I suspect they will
raise next year.) So, alas, we will just have to chalk up their
success to some pretty awesome piloting.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:39:56 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:26*pm, "Sean F (F2)" wrote: First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. *In this case, FAI. *The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. *With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. *Far from it. *FAI and US rules differ significantly. *The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA. The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. *They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. *Which is fine.. *But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. *Not even close to being close. *Even with a super-glider in Open. It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. *I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. *With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all. *The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. *Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. *It is not a team. We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. *We need to develop a true team and leverage it. *We need the pilots flying together and committed. *We need to play the same game (FAI). *That is just not going to happen with the current group. Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. *Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams. The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. *They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class. *Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately. I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. *I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. *I hope others do the same. *Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day. PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. *Its about flying together all the time....even though they might not fly FAI. *What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? *I would say Canada has serious podium potential. *I would say the US will not improve. I would love to see the US do better. *But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS. F2 On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote: To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross The issue of using IGC rules comes up quite often, so perhaps one (unofficial) rules committee voice should explain. The IGC rules require far more assigned tasks than we typically use in the US. The distance/speed points formula leads to much more gaggling and leeching. For both reasons, the landout rate is much higher, as is the chance of flying into rain, thunder, etc. The midair risk is also much higher. (We had one effectively assigned task with big gaggles at Mifflin this year, and I don't think anyone was anxious to repeat the process) These are the primary reasons we don't use IGC rules in the US -- or at least the primary reason I don't advocate doing so. Yes, doing so would better train the team. (From my one experience at worlds, dealing with the very tactical start, leeching, gaggle strategies and communication with team captains required under IGC rules are a far bigger issue for US pilots than team flying. Maybe I just had a great team mate.) Alas, most of our nationals are on the edge of viability as it is. Rules have to be run for the bottom 99%, not just to train the team. If the only people who show up are team members, contests die. Really, would you show up to a nationals if the game required hours of start gate roulette, flying around every day in one big gaggle, landing out (especially new pilots) several times in a contest, requiring that you bring a crew (most of us don't these days) or buy a glider with a motor? Would you come if we eschewed turn area and MAT tasks, so you routinely were flying into doomed turnpoints in the rain even though weather is great somewhere else? If the landout damage and midairs were even more frequent? The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first two goals. Training the team comes later. Still, the idea is worth exploring. We'll have poll questions up soon, and a big one concerns radio usage. The main argument against radio usage so far has been that it too would discourage participation, but maybe that's wrong. With poll support, we can open up radio usage to regionals this year and nationals in the future. The US team camp contest idea has been around a long time, was a great success last year and is worth pursuing. Such a contest can (by waiver) use as much of the IGC rules as it likes. If lots of people go, then we can demonstrate that our participation fears are misplaced, and IGC rules can be used more broadly.. There's been lots of talk of staging a "continental" championships, under IGC rules. It just takes a contest manager and site willing to do it and a deep pocket willing to bankroll it. Go for it! There really is no "they" who "oughtta" do these things. There is "us." The RC is however pretty allergic to theoretical "build it and they will come" arguments (see, PW5). One good thing about US rules (unlike IGC!) is that we rely on experimentation at regionals to see if bright ideas work in practice before making big changes at nationals. OTOH, there is great flexibility for regionals and super regionals to try anything vaguely sensible. So, if you want to see IGC rules, stage a regional by IGC rules and demonstrate it can work and will attract lots of pilots. Disclaimer: personal opinion, not speaking for RC here. John Cochrane PS, The Canadians use a modified version of US rules and winscore. (The main difference is the finish height, which I suspect they will raise next year.) So, alas, we will just have to chalk up their success to some pretty awesome piloting.

H



On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:39:56 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:26*pm, "Sean F (F2)" wrote: First, the US Soaring Team is highly unlikely to be competitive (or likely within 2500 pts) at a World Championship until the SSA starts (and continue's for some time) competing under the same set of competition rules. *In this case, FAI. *The SSA apparently believe's that it's rules are better rules than FAI as alot of energy is spent on them. *With that, in my opinion, US pilots will never be properly trained or prepared for top level competition. *Far from it. *FAI and US rules differ significantly. *The only country in the world that uses different rules is the USA. The SSA is fairly powerless to do anything about these recent World Championship performances. *They are happy sending a US Team and having fun. *Which is fine.. *But clearly, the US as a country, is not competitive in the 15/18/Open classes. *Not even close to being close. *Even with a super-glider in Open. It's not about the gliders, its about training and preparation as a team from the bottom up. *I have been through this on the US Sailing Team. *With that experience, in my view, the US Soaring Team is not really a team at all. *The only time the pilots were really together was at the Worlds for maybe a week prior. *Its completely individual based unlike the teams of the podium pilots. *It is not a team. We need to develop younger pilots, earlier. *We need to develop a true team and leverage it. *We need the pilots flying together and committed. *We need to play the same game (FAI). *That is just not going to happen with the current group. Our current US Soaring Team qualification system under our US rules, then sending pilots to fly a World Championship under FAI is a bit like qualifying for a poker tournament by playing checkers. *Add to that how little time is spent practicing together vs. the other teams. The club class has shown great interest in being allowed (sanctioned) by the SSA and flying under FAI rules. The SSA committee's will not allow it. *They do not want to divide up the numbers of their flagship sports class. *Oddly, the US Club Class team has been the most competitive US team lately. I for one would like to fly FAI rules, at least for some contests. *I may be buying a club class glider and hosting a none SSA, club class, FAI rule contest next year in MI. *I hope others do the same. *Especially if your goal is to be competitive at a World Championship some day. PS...Look at what Canada has accomplished. *Its about flying together all the time....even though they might not fly FAI. *What are your expectations for Canada at the next Worlds vs. the US? *I would say Canada has serious podium potential. *I would say the US will not improve. I would love to see the US do better. *But I see little or nothing changing in the next two years OR NOW WHEN IT MATTERS. F2 On Monday, September 17, 2012 2:11:31 PM UTC-4, wrote: To everyone with an interest: Given the sub-par, and I am being generous here, performance of the US Soaring Team at the recently completed WGC. Is anyone else wondering what in the world happened? Maybe the lack of debate and substantive change around this topic is why we did so badly in the first place. Clearly, US Team selection, training, and decision-making (among other things) did not work. And if our team can't work at here at "home", then how can we expect it to work when we send teams overseas. We can't do much worse than we just did, so how can we change our competitive fortunes? Or does no one care? Al Batross The issue of using IGC rules comes up quite often, so perhaps one (unofficial) rules committee voice should explain. The IGC rules require far more assigned tasks than we typically use in the US. The distance/speed points formula leads to much more gaggling and leeching. For both reasons, the landout rate is much higher, as is the chance of flying into rain, thunder, etc. The midair risk is also much higher. (We had one effectively assigned task with big gaggles at Mifflin this year, and I don't think anyone was anxious to repeat the process) These are the primary reasons we don't use IGC rules in the US -- or at least the primary reason I don't advocate doing so. Yes, doing so would better train the team. (From my one experience at worlds, dealing with the very tactical start, leeching, gaggle strategies and communication with team captains required under IGC rules are a far bigger issue for US pilots than team flying. Maybe I just had a great team mate.) Alas, most of our nationals are on the edge of viability as it is. Rules have to be run for the bottom 99%, not just to train the team. If the only people who show up are team members, contests die. Really, would you show up to a nationals if the game required hours of start gate roulette, flying around every day in one big gaggle, landing out (especially new pilots) several times in a contest, requiring that you bring a crew (most of us don't these days) or buy a glider with a motor? Would you come if we eschewed turn area and MAT tasks, so you routinely were flying into doomed turnpoints in the rain even though weather is great somewhere else? If the landout damage and midairs were even more frequent? The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first two goals. Training the team comes later. Still, the idea is worth exploring. We'll have poll questions up soon, and a big one concerns radio usage. The main argument against radio usage so far has been that it too would discourage participation, but maybe that's wrong. With poll support, we can open up radio usage to regionals this year and nationals in the future. The US team camp contest idea has been around a long time, was a great success last year and is worth pursuing. Such a contest can (by waiver) use as much of the IGC rules as it likes. If lots of people go, then we can demonstrate that our participation fears are misplaced, and IGC rules can be used more broadly.. There's been lots of talk of staging a "continental" championships, under IGC rules. It just takes a contest manager and site willing to do it and a deep pocket willing to bankroll it. Go for it! There really is no "they" who "oughtta" do these things. There is "us." The RC is however pretty allergic to theoretical "build it and they will come" arguments (see, PW5). One good thing about US rules (unlike IGC!) is that we rely on experimentation at regionals to see if bright ideas work in practice before making big changes at nationals. OTOH, there is great flexibility for regionals and super regionals to try anything vaguely sensible. So, if you want to see IGC rules, stage a regional by IGC rules and demonstrate it can work and will attract lots of pilots. Disclaimer: personal opinion, not speaking for RC here. John Cochrane PS, The Canadians use a modified version of US rules and winscore. (The main difference is the finish height, which I suspect they will raise next year.) So, alas, we will just have to chalk up their success to some pretty awesome piloting.

Here's some more fodder for the discussion. I set up a blog to post some of my flight experiences and some post flight analyses as a rookie at the Uvalde WGC. I only have the first 6 days up so far. I plan to put up the second half soon.

http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde

Dave Leonard

Here's some more fodder for the discussion. I set up a blog to post
some of my flight experiences and some post flight analyses as a
rookie at the Uvalde WGC. I only have the first 6 days up so far. I
plan to put up the second half soon.

http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde

Dave Leonard

Dave: These are fantastic! Just the sort of in-depth analysis all of
us wannabees are looking for from Uvalde. Thanks for posting them! I
look forward to seeing the remaining days.
John Cochrane

Here's some more fodder for the discussion. I set up a blog to post
some of my flight experiences and some post flight analyses as a
rookie at the Uvalde WGC. I only have the first 6 days up so far. I
plan to put up the second half soon.

http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde


OK, so let's stop fighting about rules and get back to the topic. What
are “lessons learned” for aspiring US pilots from Uvalde?

Dave put up his experience in his great blog, so I thought I’d play
amateur coach. Dave, I hope you don’t mind. The point here is, lessons
learned, not criticize the pilots. Dave’s blog makes it clear how
tough this contest really was. Don’t think from his blog or my
comments that doing better is easy. (I screwed up far worse at
Szeged!)

In fact, one of the things I see going wrong in US team flying is that
the lessons learned in one WGC don’t get collectively digested and
passed on to the next one, so take the post in that spirit.

(Context: I got to fly with the US team at the Uvalde pre-worlds. We
learned a lot about team flying, and how hard it is to accomplish well
at Uvalde. Less obvious at the pre-worlds, but the important lesson
we learned earlier is that staying with your team member costs a
little bit when things are going well. But it pays off when things are
tough, when you need that one hard climb. Which happens, even at
Uvalde. The hardest thing for the 2010 US team was to really digest
that it’s worth swallowing the small losses in order to stick together
to avoid disasters. )

Some selections from Dave's blog with comment:

Day 7
John and I launched around 1:40
We found in the training week that joining pre-start was pretty easy
with FLARM. Well, at least joining horizontally. Getting to the same
height at the same place and time when we wanted to go was another
story
We did not get joined up before the start, but when our planned start
time came, about 3:00 we both started. I was about 3 minutes behind
and a couple miles south.

Comment: It may sound easy, but getting together at the start is
remarkably hard, even if you launch one right after the other. When Al
Tyler and I were flying at Szeged, we found that the only technique
that worked was for the first pilot, and then the pilot with larger
energy, to zero in on the second one like WWII fighters, and then just
sit there. If you don’t like what he’s doing talk about it, but do not
leave high cover ever. Even so, we started together less than half
the time. That’s very hard to do, especially in weak weather when the
stress of getting to the right place and height (stupid unlimited
altitude starts) is so high. The rest of Dave’s blog shows several
disasters that might well have been avoided had they been able to
start together. This is a skill, it’s a hard skill to master, and a
good case for those who say we should practice team flying in the US

Comment 2: You read a lot in Dave’s blog about the usefulness of Flarm
for team flying. We will have a big debate in the US over the next
year or so whether to allow flarm unrestricted or to impose some sort
of stealth mode. Question 1, is it really useful, seems answered.
Question 2, do you want to fly contests this way (and gain skill in
using flarm for team flying) is the open one.

Day 6
An interesting twist today was that there was wave above the clouds in
the start area. Several pilots, including John got up 1500-2000 ft
above cloudbase for the start. I missed the wave and started at about
6900 ft.

Comment: Apart at the start again.

John found a good 9 kt climb a few miles into the gloom, all the way
up. Several others were with him. I came in about the time he was
topping out and found 3 kts. The Netherlands team (1R and K1) joined
me on the first short leg. We came in under John together and all
missed the climb.

Comment: As we all have experienced, once you’re a few thousand feet
low, it’s often frustrating to try to catch someone.

I was alone, looking at 200 miles left to go in the blue at 5 pm.
Tempting to just glide back to Uvalde. But soon after I found other
gliders, and some lift and decided to give it a try.. I had gotten to
the near the top of the gaggle and left in front.… Reviewing the
flight logs showed we were headed straight towards a thermal marked by
34 about 1500 ft below us. I did not see him, and just missed the edge
of his thermal. The rest of the gaggle stopped for a nice climb.

Comment: Ouch! I landed out twice at Szeged from just this mistake.
When you work your way to the top of a gaggle at the worlds, you feel
pretty good. And in US contests, the big boys lead out. NO. Under
worlds rules, you stick with the gaggle in this situation – unless you
can clearly see the lift ahead, or the next gaggle you can hopschotch
to. This is a very hard lesson for US pilots. Really, in my view,
the start time, gaggling, and marker strategies in world contest are
the hurdle, and harder to master than team flying. (If you can stick
with a gaggle, you can stick with a team mate)

Comment 2: One place that team flying helps enormously is just having
two eyeballs looking for gaggles, markers, birds, etc. Had they been
together would one of them have seen the marker?

Lessons learned: … don’t pass up 6 kts a mile away from someone
reportedly climbing at 9 kts but 3000 ft above you under a dark sky
like this one.

Comment: Yup.

Day 5
John and I planned to leave early, believing the weather forecast, and
hoping the pack would not and they would get caught. John got up and
left, right behind the British team at 1330. I was not able to get in
position and ended up starting about 6 minutes behind him, right with
M6, the current contest leader and a pretty big minnow pack.

The day winner started 15 minutes later than I did, and flew right at
minimum time. Bracketing the best part of the day and staying out of
trouble.

Comment: Apart at the start again. Leaving early turned out not to be
so crucial and worth leaving apart.

Day 4

John started with the pack about 12 minutes before me. Well, he
thought he started. A little flight computer misconfiguration led him
to believe the line extended farther north than it really did. We
never joined up out on course, but he did provide info on conditions
ahead. Missing the startline cost him dearly. His speed would have
been virtually identical to mine, had the start line been a little
longer.

Comment: Apart at the start again. Two eyeballs might have caught this
one. Lots of little losses are not worth this big disaster.

Day 3

We over did the waiting for others to go out first. At least I did. I
was out of position when John started, but found a climb and followed
about 2 minutes behind. I saw a bunch of gliders coming back toward
me right after starting and figured they would be right behind. But
they were 18 meter gliders. I was the last 15 meter starter.

So what went wrong other than the obvious low spot? Started too late
and flew all alone most of the day

Comment: Apart at the start.

Day 2
John and I started together at 2:45.

Comment: In 7 days this is the only report of starting together.

We stuck pretty close for the first two legs. We were in the middle of
a pretty fast pack. I decided to deviate a little to the right of
course to a marked climb. It was OK, and not a huge deviation, but it
separated us. John continued on with the Germans following him. I
rejoined in trail a couple miles back and above. The Germans (M6 and
EI) deviated a tad left of John’s course and found a strong thermal a
mile behind him, Just south of Uvalde. I saw them, but decided it was
too big a deviation. It was about 2 km, 90 degrees. I was at their
altitude, about 4300 ft. Right where a good climb was needed to go
into the hills high. But I kept going, thinking there would be another
just as good ahead.

10 minutes later they are going by 1500 ft above as I’m trying to
center a rowdy little thermal north of Uvalde at the edge of the
hills. I got it centered a few turns later and got up. John had gone
lower a few miles northeast of me, but found a good climb. We rejoined
10 miles further north (thanks again to flarm) and worked our way up
towards Rock Springs.

Comment: Digest this one for all the lessons learned. “I decided to
deviate… but it separated us.” OK, sometimes you have to split up, but
the benefit of the deviation had better be really worth the cost of
having split up. Evidently not so here, as “we rejoined 10 miles
further north” means neither pilot was right about the decision to
split up. Were I coach, I’d say “did you guys talk about the
decision?”
Sometimes one will stop for a climb and the other go on, and “rejoined
in trail a couple miles back and above” is this situation. So, back in
the saddle. Next the Germans and John go different ways, but Dave
seems to be following neither.
If you haven’t been to Uvalde, you need a good climb going in to the
hills—and it’s often just where it’s hard. I have blown countless
contest days getting low going in to the hills. OK, 2 km at 90 degrees
is hard. But following the Germans in the first place might not have
meant any loss. In the gaggle game of WGC AST soaring, you don’t
voluntarily give up markers if you don’t have to.

I got a little off line and dropped a little below him going into the
Rock Springs area…. But the pack I had been with was now12-15 miles
ahead of me.

Comment. OK, coach has to ask, why were you not with this pack?

The sky towards Uvalde was bluing out. Time to downshift a little and
try to stay high. I deviated a bit north of course. Most of the pack
in front of me deviated a bit south of course. But I could not see
them at the time as they were still 10 miles ahead….

Looking at the logs, there was more team flying at the top of the
scoresheet than Day 1. A lot more of the pairs started together and
stayed together. The fastest pilots started near the back (right with
John and I), stayed out of trouble, connected early with the strong
lift north of Rock Springs, and found a good climb on the last leg
late in the day to finish.

The big air typical at Uvalde makes keeping a pair together tricky.
The good line is typically too narrow to fly in parallel looking for
the best air. The guy that hits it right gets a huge advantage very
quickly. Both in cruise and in hitting a core to climb in. The
preferred strategy appears to be flying in trail with the higher pilot
leading. That works as long as it doesn’t push the lower pilot low
enough that he is out of the good air. It seemed that below 3-4000 ft
AGL, the good lift lines disappeared and and the sink increased. So a
500 ft separation rapidly turned into 1500 ft and real trouble for the
low pilot. Maybe thats just a personal problem, but it shows up in a
lot of flight logs. And some very proficient teams (Itallians for
instnce) had real problems staying together.

It really looks like the big payoff is being with a good sized group
at the critical parts of the flight and using them to avoid the
traps.

Comment: Everyone read those wise words again.

Day 1:

John and I had joined a big gaggle near the start line. He was near
the top, in a pretty good position. I was a few hundred feet lower and
could not climb further. I shifted a little further north of the line
to try to climb. That cloud was marginally better, but still only
about 1 kt. John lost track of the fact I was lower and had moved
further out of position and called ready to start. I started to
follow, although 600 ft lower. I found 2-3 kts about 1 mile south of
the line, which I worked for a few turns and restarted. Another 100 ft
lower and 4 minutes behind, but I never saw him again on course.

Stopping for the weak thermal just past the start line and restarting
was not a good call. It go me further behind the pack and my teammate.


Well done Dave! Write up the next few days!

In the trace analysis, I'd be especially curious to see how much the
leaders are using gaggles/markers, and how they manage to stay high
and out of trouble.

John Cochrane

On 9/19/2012 7:39 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
The US rules committee has safety, and then participation as our first
two goals. Training the team comes later.

When I was an SSA Director in the late '80s, the Directors voted on the
contest rules, and those were my criteria. Putting it another way, I
believed contests should serve the sport by drawing in and retaining
members, even if it meant so-so performance by the team at World
contests. Not every Director felt that way, of course.

I'm pleased to see someone of John's experience and stature advocating
the same thing. And I agree - if improving the team's performance gets
more participation (contests and the sport) - Go For It!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Having participated several times in US Nationals and Regionals, as well as in Polish Nationals, and the recent WGC, I thought it may be helpful to add my observations.

I don't think that the lack of FAI rules in the U.S. is the root cause of the problem. I don't see any data that confirms this claim. There were many pilots from other countries at the WGC that did not win but they fly by FAI rules at home. Certainly, I didn't feel significant differences competing in the U.S. and in Poland.

I believe that the decline in participation in Nationals is the real problem. Simply, the Nationals are becoming less and less competitive, and without major changes it will only get worse. What can be done? The only choice is to start using handicaps. Most other countries do. If there were no handicaps in Polish Nationals, most of the pilots would not even come, because they can't afford to buy the best gliders. Consider this, in the latest 18m Polish Nationals, a pilot on a Diana 2 won, ASG-29 was second, LS8-18 was third, and LS8a fourth. There were 15 ASG-29s and Ventuses 2 in that contest.. The point is that pilots that come to the contest want to feel they have a chance to win. And I don't think that a flat 2% handicap will solve the problem. There are some drawbacks of the handicaps, but they do allow to compete.

Another observation is about the use of a radio. It may be my personal opinion, but it seems that flying at a contest where radio contact is allowed is more fun. Pilots tend to form informal teams, even if they are not on the top of the scoresheet. Also, it's a great learning opportunity being able to listen how more experienced pilots make tactical decisions (if you are able to scan their frequency).

Wiktor Kozlik